12. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

As of March 31, 2016, the Company had firm commitments to purchase inventories of approximately $23.8 million through Fiscal 2019. Certain inventory delivery dates and related payments are not scheduled; therefore amounts under these firm purchase commitments will be payable upon the receipt of the related inventories.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases offices and manufacturing facilities under various non‑cancelable operating leases expiring at various times through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. All of the leases require the Company to pay maintenance, insurance and property taxes. The lease agreements for primary office and manufacturing facilities provide for rent escalation over the lease term and renewal options for five‑year periods. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The difference between rent expense recorded and the amount paid is credited or charged to deferred rent, which is included in other long‑term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The balance of deferred rent was approximately $0.2 million as each of March 31, 2016 and 2015. Rent expense was approximately $2.5 million, $2.4 million and $2.3 million for the years ended March 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and Northpark Industrial (“Northpark”) entered into a Third Amendment to Lease (the “Third Amendment”) to amend the Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease - Net, dated December 1, 1999, as amended (the “Lease”), pursuant to which the Company leases the premises located at 21211 Nordhoff Street, Chatsworth, California for use as primary office space, engineering testing and manufacturing. The Third Amendment extended the term of the Lease for a period of two months commencing on August 1, 2014 and ending on September 30, 2014 and set the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease at $81,001 per month.

On September 30, 2014, the Company and Northpark entered into a Fourth Amendment to Lease (the “Fourth Amendment”) to amend the Lease by extending the term of the Lease for a period of five years commencing on October 1, 2014 and ending on September 30, 2019. The Fourth Amendment also adjusts the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease to the following: $39,500 per month from October 1, 2014 through November 30, 2014; $79,000 per month from December 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015; $81,225 per month from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; $83,600 per month from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017; $86,000 per month from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018; and $88,500 per month from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019.  The Fourth Amendment also provides the Company with an option to extend the Lease by an additional five-year term following the expiration of the term of the Lease as amended by the Fourth Amendment and provides that Northpark will perform certain capital improvements to the leased premises’ HVAC system.

On March 28, 2013, the Company and Prologis, L.P., formerly known as AMB Property, L.P., entered into a third amendment (the “Van Nuys Amendment”) to the Lease Agreement dated September 25, 2000, for leased premises used by the Company for engineering testing and manufacturing located in Van Nuys, California. The Van Nuys Amendment extends the term of the Lease Agreement from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017. The Van Nuys Amendment also adjusts the monthly base rent payable by the Company under the Lease Agreement to the following: $60,000 per month from January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 and $65,000 per month from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017.

At March 31, 2016, the Company’s minimum commitments under non-cancelable operating leases were as follows (in thousands):

 

Other Commitments

In September 2010, the Company was awarded a grant from the DOE for the research, development and testing of a more efficient microturbine CHP system. Part of the improved efficiency will come from an improved microturbine design, with a projected electrical efficiency of 42% and power output of 370 kW. The contract was over a five-year period and was completed in September 2015. The project was estimated to cost approximately $11.7 million. The DOE will contribute $5.0 million toward the project, of which $4.2 million was allocated to the Company, and the Company will incur approximately $6.7 million in research and development expense. The Company billed the DOE under the contract for this project a cumulative amount of $4.2 million through September 30, 2015, the date on which the contract was completed.

The Company has agreements with certain of its distributors requiring that if the Company renders parts obsolete in inventories the distributors own and hold in support of their obligations to serve fielded microturbines, then the Company is required to replace the affected stock at no cost to the distributors. While the Company has never incurred costs or obligations for these types of replacements, it is possible that future changes in the Company’s product technology could result and yield costs to the Company if significant amounts of inventory are held at distributors. As of March 31, 2016, no significant inventories were held at distributors.

Legal Matters

Federal Securities Class Action

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the “Kinney Complaint”) and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the “Grooms Complaint”).

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all purchasers of the Company’s securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015.  The Kinney Complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company.  The Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company’s financial statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting.  The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.  The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.  On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff.  On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint was filed in the consolidated action.  The putative class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint is due June 17, 2016. The Company has not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

 

State Derivative Lawsuits — California

On February 18, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Stesiak v. Jamison, et al., No. BC610782.  The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust the Company’s account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay the Company.  The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment, that the Company institute corporate governance reforms, and disgorgement from the individual defendants.  On May 5, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are decided.  On May 10, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order, and scheduled a status conference for August 24, 2016.

On May 25, 2016, we received a pre-filing copy of a purported shareholder derivative action entitled Velma Kilpatrick v. Simon, et al., purportedly to be filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in the State of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants failed to timely adjust the Company’s account receivables and backlog to reflect BPC’s inability to pay the Company.  The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the Company institute corporate governance reforms. 

Federal Derivative Lawsuit

On March 7, 2016, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under the following caption:  Haber v. Jamison, et al., No. CV16-01569-DMG (RAOx).  The lawsuit alleges that certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors knew or should have known that BPC would be unable to fulfill its obligations to the Company, but allowed the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding BPC and the Company’s financial condition.  The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.  It demands damages for the amount of damage sustained by the Company as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including that the Company institute appropriate corporate governance reforms.  On May 11, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking to stay this action until such time as the defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss the federal securities class action are decided.  On May 13, 2016, the Court entered that proposed order.